This is self-heating, rather than external heating. The cathode keeps itself above the critical temperature.

The halve live of the D-D fusion reaction, that is the time an average D-D--> 4He needs to release its about 23MeV excess energy is very, very long. This is certainly something that people that stick with the standard model won't grasp. But the neutron follows the same law.

The new model predicts that the halve live of D-D fusion is threshold (input energy needed to start D-D--> 4He ) dependent. The deeper the threshold the longer the HAD phase. But of course this is not linear...

Also interesting is the "completely different". As some stated here (THH?) it would be most unusual for there to be two major but truly unique mechanisms discovered at the same time,

resulting in a similar energy discharge. Unusual but perhaps not impossible.

An unwise thing to say I'm afraid. I do believe in the conservation of miracles, and neither of the mechanisms we were experimenting with are new discoveries in the LENR field. 'Hot and dry' and 'cool and wet' are both different versions of the same mechanism. As even Jed would agree.

Has worked stopped on this "original" device or is there a dual investigation? If continued, can any information be shared?

There are only 3 of us, and I and my colleagues are working 60 hours a week as it is, since 2 of us are also very busy building a small-scale pilot plant for a non-LENR process. So just the one 'hot and dry' LENR system at the moment. Full time volunteers with scientific and technical expertise are welcome to apply for non-paying jobs btw. On the topic of sharing information, we are, but at a pace of our own choosing,

An unwise thing to say I'm afraid. I do believe in the conservation of miracles, and neither of the mechanisms we were experimenting with are new discoveries in the LENR field. 'Hot and dry' and 'cool and wet' are both different versions of the same mechanism. As even Jed would agree.

There are only 3 of us, and I and my colleagues are working 60 hours a week as it is, since 2 of us are also very busy building a small-scale pilot plant for a non-LENR process. So just the one 'hot and dry' LENR system at the moment. Full time volunteers with scienetific and technical expertise are welcome to apply for non-paying jobs btw. On the topic of sharing information, we are, but at a pace of our own choosing,

Thank you for the response.

Certainly understandable, only so many hours one can work. Better to be precise with one project than spread too thin with two.

Does anyone know the status of Bob H or Magicsound's research? Last I heard, they were not seeing much in terms of excess heat or gammas. Perhaps they would be interested in testing one the "original" devices? I have faith that they are both well suited and highly capable.

Having an independant replication in this field is truly needed.

I wish I could assist, but alas, I am in a different country than LFH and am not skilled in the art to attempt any reasearch by myself, so I must watch from afar.

I think that I find this figure of Fleischmann`s compelling because of my experience with excitable systems (e.g. neuronal and cardiac tissues). From the standpoint of myself and my colleagues Fleischmann's plot is immediately informative, but I now realize that this may not be so for those in the lenr community. So here is a description of the possible basis of lenr "heat after death". It uses standard tools of nonlinear dynamical systems theory.

First, suppose that whatever the lenr mechanism is, it is temperature-dependent. Assume that the dependence is something generic like this ....

Figure 1/

The precise relationship doesn't matter because this will be a qualitative argument. The point is that as the temperature increases, lenr heating turns on.

Now think about cooling. On the same temperature axis, the essence of effect of Newtonian cooling is that its effect grows linearly as temperature increases beyond ambient levels. Something like this ...

Figure 2/

Putting these two things together by taking lenr heating minus Newtonian cooling gives, at any temperature, whether it is heating or cooling that predominates -- or whether the two are balanced.

Figure 3/

In plot 3, when the curve is above the horizontal axis heating predominates, and so the temperature of the system will increase. When the curve is below the axis, cooling predominates and the system temperature will decrease. Points A, B,and C are so called `steady states` where heating and cooling are perfectly balanced such that the system temperature will not move either up or down.

Now here is the point of the analysis. The arrows on the horizontal axis in Figure 3 show the direction that the temperature of the system will move at any given temperature. You can see that points A and C are stable steady states in the sense that if you displace the system temperature a little bit from them it will come right back back (these are so-called `attractors`). Point A is a low-temperature attractor where there is no lenr activity and point C is a high-temperature attractor where the lenr mechanism is essentially fully activated. In contrast to these two points, B shows an unstable steady state. This means that if the system temperature is right at B it will remain steady but that the smallest displacement of temperature will cause the system to move away from point B and end up at either A or C. In technical language point B is called a `separatrix'. It separates two basins of attraction or two areas of very different behaviour. Such a situation, having multiple areas of behaviour, is impossible in a linear system.

So the import of Figure 3/ , above, is that point B is a threshold beyond which lenr activity will switch on in a sgtble fashion and will be resistant to turning off. At temperatures below the threshold at point B, cooling predominates and eventually lenr will shut off.

Here is how this all relates to the figure that Fleischmann was so keen on. All the plots so far show relationships between temperature and overall heating/cooling. It is also possible to use these relationships to numerically simulate the time course of temperatures in a system like this. So here is what you get if you have a system with these nonlinear properties and start out near point A, and then push the temperature upwards using eternal heating.

Figure 4/

The square curve at the bottom shows how external heating is pulsed on and then off. The curve above it shows how the system temperature changes in response. Beginning at point A (which is meant to be the same point as point A in Figure 3/ above), the system temperature rises more or less exponentially in response to the external heating. If there was no active lenr heating at work here the system would continue along the dotted line. But if there is lenr heating, then a threshold is present (at point B) and once you cross this threshold the system temperature quickly shoots up seeking a new attractor as a consequence. Now, even if external heating is removed as shown here, you are still stuck at the attractor at point C where lenr heating is still engaged. This is what I take to be called heat after death. The combination of an inflection point when the threshold is crossed and then, later on, a continuing elevated temperature is a dead giveaway that I instantly recognized as characteristic of the nonlinear mechanism I have outlined here. I'm not sure whether of not Fleischmann himself recognized the importance of the inflection point in the plot.

Although my argument here is qualitative, I stress that all components are measurable and so, in theory, all parts of Figures 1-3 could be quantified. I think in practice, however, that Alan Smith cannot measure the lenr temperature-activation curve in Figure 1/ because of the way his measurement system is presently constituted. The empirical quantification of the Figure 1/ activation curve would require that the system temperature be held at a series of temperatures that span the activation region f the lenr heating and I think that Alan's PID controller would not be able to stabilize the system temperature over this range because it does not have active cooling.

Assume the power of the LENR reaction is proprotional to T e.g. k2T, k2 constant

I don`t see this as a physically reasonable assumption. It says that the higher the temperature goes the higher the lenr power will go. Forever. Shouldn`t there be some limit on how fast the lenr mechnism can churn out heat? Once again, though, the activation relationship should be measurable.

Going beyond that objection, however, the existence of a threshold doesn`t really depend on having a maximal activation level for lenr heat generation. It just depends on the foot of the temperature-dependent lenr activation relationhip having a curvilinear form such that below a certain temperature the probability of an lenr reaction is essentially zero. I suspect that this would come about from the probability of two nuclear reactants coming close enough to interact.

First of all, I would point out that part of the sigmoidal activation curve I have posited is linear, i.e. the part with the positive slope. Secondly, if the experimental data you are referring to is Figure 6 in the most interesting paper you have linked to then this shows a nonlinear relationship between cell temperature and excess power since below about 40 degrees C the relationship is flat. .

I don`t see this as a physically reasonable assumption. It says that the higher the temperature goes the higher the lenr power will go. Forever. Shouldn`t there be some limit on how fast the lenr mechnism can churn out heat? Once again, though, the activation relationship should be measurable.

Going beyond that objection, however, the existence of a threshold doesn`t really depend on having a maximal activation level for lenr heat generation. It just depends on the foot of the temperature-dependent lenr activation relationhip having a curvilinear form such that below a certain temperature the probability of an lenr reaction is essentially zero. I suspect that this would come about from the probability of two nuclear reactants coming close enough to interact.

This assumes a linear relationship between power and temperature, small intervalls are always linear, but the question is if the actual interval is small or not, we don't know.

I don`t see this as a physically reasonable assumption. It says that the higher the temperature goes the higher the lenr power will go.

This is simply wrong. Only the ignition of LENR is sometimes temperature dependent, but as Holmlid shows - the faint lab light is enough to produce H*/D* and finally mesons.

Some LENR processes depend on very narrow conditions. Thus raising T just means "scanning over the trigger point" nothing more. High LENR energy output will ultimately stop the process because the NAE decays.

In case of simple LiNiH LENR it sometimes looks like the output is dependent on the input. But the LiNiH branch is very demanding and I would follow other paths.

Optically pumping some medium essentially means to inject light in order to electronically excite the medium or some of its constituents into other (usually higher-lying) energy levels.

In the case of a LENR reactor, the result of optical pumping is to increase the population of polaritons. When the density of the polariton population reaches a critical level a polariton petal condensate will form at which time the gamma radiation will be replaced with heat.

Secondly, if the experimental data you are referring to is Figure 6 in the most interesting paper you have linked to then this shows a nonlinear relationship between cell temperature and excess power since below about 40 degrees C the relationship is flat. .

Yeah, fair enough. I reckon your 'attractors' sketch would would look fairly similar either way.

I can't work out how to line up the two graphs' axes in SPICE when modelling a 25W 'input' into an R-C model of the alumina block, versus it's Newtonion cooling, so it's a bit pointless comparing the two, but something fairly similar to your idea of a plateau pops out: At least, there's a higher peak after power-down and a non-exponential roll-off.

This assumes a linear relationship between power and temperature, small intervalls are always linear, but the question is if the actual interval is small or not, we don't know.

I'm not clear on your meaning here. What is "this"?

If you are saying that the sigmoidal activation relationship I posited is linear over part of its range, then I agree. The crucial point is that it is not globally linear like newtonian cooling. Just the property of lenr activation being near zero at low temperatures and then nonzero at more positive temperatures is enough to establish a threshold.

Some LENR processes depend on very narrow conditions. Thus raising T just means "scanning over the trigger point" nothing more. High LENR energy output will ultimately stop the process because the NAE decays.

If you are saying that the sigmoidal activation relationship I posited is linear over part of its range, then I agree. The crucial point is that it is not globally linear like newtonian cooling. Just the property of lenr activation being near zero at low temperatures and then nonzero at more positive temperatures is enough to establish a threshold.